From today's London Sunday Times. Incidentally the winning BIB and CC CKCS male at Crufts, Lanola Santana of Maibee, was first bred at 11 months then again at 15 months (from a quick check of databases...). So much for the MVD protocol.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5864228.ece

From The Sunday Times
March 8, 2009

Nothing’s breedin’ changed at Crufts, mate
Her film on the plight of inbred show dogs caused a storm. Jemima Harrison visits Crufts incognito to look for progress

The whippet breeder is outraged. “All this talk of health is spoiling our fun,” she complained. “Really, I could kill that Jemima Harrison.”

Indeed she could. She is standing right next to me. But she doesn’t know this, because I am at Crufts 2009 incognito. The Kennel Club has refused me permission to film. It says it doesn’t want me spoiling its day. I am, in the eyes of some here, the most hated woman in dogdom. The reason? I directed Pedigree Dogs Exposed – the documentary that my company Passionate Productions made for the BBC last August highlighting health and welfare problems in some of our best-loved breeds.

Now, unwanted but curious, I am back as a paying customer. And what do I think? I think it stinks.

It’s not the gamey whiff of the Irish terrier strung up on a table, groomed to millimetre perfection. It’s not the acrid aroma from the splashes of urine pooling by the rows of benches where hundreds of bored-looking dogs doze, waiting their turn in the ring. It’s the stench of continuing denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is something terribly wrong with our pedigree dogs.

The fallout from Pedigree Dogs Exposed was swift and substantial. The RSPCA, Dogs Trust and People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) pulled out of Crufts. So did Pedigree, the show’s main sponsor. Finally, after appointing an independent panel to advise on the health issues raised by the film, the BBC suspended its coverage of Crufts for the first time in more than 40 years.

“The majority of pedigree dogs are perfectly healthy,” has become the Kennel Club’s defence mantra. True, many of the dogs here at Crufts will live long and healthy lives. But saying this is not enough: it’s like Hannibal Lecter’s defence lawyer parading a stream of men and women through the courtroom and proclaiming: “Members of the jury . . . I give you . . . all these people the defendant didn’t eat.”

At the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, huge banners hang across the entrance to the show halls. They declare, “Crufts . . . celebrating happy, healthy dogs”, and I want to be convinced, I do. But I’m not.

It’s not that the basset and bloodhounds’ red-rimmed eyes are as sore and saggy as last year, because of course it’s going to take time to change things. No, the reason for my heavy heart is that, apart from a few pockets of hope, Crufts 2009 burns with resentment that outsiders have come in and turned the world upside down.

The past weeks have seen the Kennel Club alternate between accepting the charges levelled at it by its critics and stamping its feet like a spoilt child.

On Thursday I watch as Caroline Kisko, the Kennel Club secretary, tells a Sky News crew: “We shouldn’t be humanising this. What we are talking about here are dogs and dogs have a very different genetic structure to us.” She then adds that all this talk about “inbreeding” is boring. Boring? Try telling that to the whippets here. Many of the show dogs are very inbred and suffer from the immune system problems that occur frequently when you mate close relatives together for generation after generation.

After Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the Kennel Club announced that from March 1, 2009 it would no longer register the progeny of mother-to-son, father-to-daughter and brother-to-sister matings. These kinds of unions have traditionally allowed breeders to replicate champions – at the expense of genetic diversity. Banning such mating, then, is an important first step.

But at Crufts on Thursday, I overhear Jeff Sampson, the Kennel Club’s genetics adviser, tell one inquirer to the new Crufts Health Zone that the ban on incest matings is “just a PR thing”. Also in the wake of the programme the Kennel Club has revised 78 breed standards – the written descriptions that dictate what a breed should look like. There are 56 changes to the bulldog standard alone – although some are minimal. The bulldog’s head must no longer be “large”, just “relatively large”.

A more moderate bulldog does win best of breed at Crufts this year, but several very big, very wrinkled, lumbering beasts are awarded with rosettes in clear defiance of the revised breed standard. “The general public just doesn’t understand them,” insists one exhibitor, who thinks it is okay that most bulldogs are born by caesarean section, because, after all, “Victoria Beck-ham has them. They’re simply too posh to push”, he explains, eyes twinkling.

“Put your tongue back in,” says the owner of a rasping pug, who then helpfully pops the dog’s protruding appendage back into its mouth herself.

“He has an elongated soft palate,” she explains, “and his sister has luxating patellas.” Both are serious faults. And yet here they are at the mecca of pedigree dogdom. “They are a very ill breed,” she then whispers conspiratorially. “Some of the breeders are very bad.”

In the peke ring, dogs with the flattest of faces are still winning, again despite the newly revised breed standard that demands the dogs have at least a bit of a muzzle in order to ease the respiratory problems that are common. “Let’s go for a little walk,” says one owner to the ball of fluff at her feet that has just won its class. The peke walks about five yards, then refuses to go any further. I think of my own dogs, which cover up to 20 miles a day on Salisbury Plain.

Yet on Thursday the Kennel Club issued a statement stating it was “unfair” that its critics have forced it to rush through these changes. “We have been working on this for the past five years,” says Caroline Kisko. “But these things take time.”

A very long time. In 1985 the Kennel Club’s Bill Edmond answered the critics of the day with this: “We are coming to the end of a review of the breed standards where we are removing clauses in those standards that require exaggeration. We recognise, and most of the breeders recognise, that you don’t need exaggeration in any animal in fact. It’s a very big revision: we’re taking out clauses which were deleterious to the breeds.”

They said exactly the same to me in an interview last year – before the film was aired. And now they’re saying it again. Forgive me for thinking it’s groundhog day. Or perhaps that should be ground-dog day.

Aileen

8th March 2009, 01:07 PM

Why am I not surpassed the poor dogs I really dont know what to say :cry*ing:
--Aileen and the gang(Barney---Jazzie---Jake)

harleyfarley

8th March 2009, 02:06 PM

I read this earlier and left a message on the paper, not sure if its the same one, go jemima she really has got up their goats, and some media attention too, she can do more for these dogs then you or I could possibly dream, so lets all back her 100% and let her know that us careing breeders and dog owners dont care about crufts which is after all a glorified freak show.
She may not always right, but least people are taking notice and they WILL have to do something to address the situation.

HollyDolly

8th March 2009, 02:29 PM

She can do more for these dogs then you or I could possibly dream, so lets all back her 100% and let her know that us careing breeders and dog owners dont care about crufts which is after all a glorified freak show.

(sorry I cannot get the tag to work re above quote ( Harleyfarley)

As a former dog shower and breeder of Cavaliers I would just like to comment on the post above. First and foremost the Health of my Dogs has and always will be my No1 priority, but with respect I cannot condemn a hobby which to me it was. There are many caring people who participate in this sport who also care about the health of their dogs. I would never consider them as freaks, all dogs are precious and deserve to be held in the highest esteem. What I totally disagree with as many of you know is the practice of unscrupulous breeding be it with the puppy farmers or with breeders who do not follow protocols, continue to mate stock that are affected with genetic disease or any disease for that matter.
I would consider them as the freaks and not the dogs.

Karlin

8th March 2009, 02:55 PM

You can just click the quotes option then paste in the selected text. That is what I always do.

sins

8th March 2009, 02:56 PM

The pekingese who won BOB was referred to the Crufts vet by a steward who was concerned by it's breathing and was passed fit to compete.
See the piece from Dogworld here:
http://dogworldblogs.blogspot.com/2009/03/pekingese-exhibit-referred-to-vet-under.html

Sins

Karlin

8th March 2009, 03:04 PM

Reports suggested that a steward became concerned about the Peke’s breathing, so the dog was brought to the veterinary centre where he was examined by Crufts chief vet Steve Dean.
“We looked at all the dog’s parameters – things such as heart rate – and all the clinical signs appeared normal,” Mr Dean said. “The breathing was a bit noisy, but not badly. He was just a bit warm and panting.

:sl*p: "But not badly"? Sheesh -- isn't this precisely the problem -- that so many breeds are now compromised but as long as they are not actually collapsing it isn't worth concern? Isn't this the point Jemima makes -- that there's literally *no change* at all in how judge's are judging the breeds and they will continue to be bred with these physically limiting and inhibiting features? :(

Margaret C

8th March 2009, 03:23 PM

She can do more for these dogs then you or I could possibly dream, so lets all back her 100% and let her know that us careing breeders and dog owners dont care about crufts which is after all a glorified freak show.

(sorry I cannot get the tag to work re above quote ( Harleyfarley)

As a former dog shower and breeder of Cavaliers I would just like to comment on the post above. First and foremost the Health of my Dogs has and always will be my No1 priority, but with respect I cannot condemn a hobby which to me it was. There are many caring people who participate in this sport who also care about the health of their dogs. I would never consider them as freaks, all dogs are precious and deserve to be held in the highest esteem. What I totally disagree with as many of you know is the practice of unscrupulous breeding be it with the puppy farmers or with breeders who do not follow protocols, continue to mate stock that are affected with genetic disease or any disease for that matter.
I would consider them as the freaks and not the dogs.

I do understand what you are saying, I still show my Japanese Chin sometimes and thoroughly enjoy my day out, but, while trying to get breeders to realise the seriousness of SM, I was so often dismissed with " I just want to enjoy a day out with my dogs, this is my hobby" that I now take a slightly different view of a phrase that is so often trotted out as an excuse for not taking responsibility.

The problem is that with most hobbies people use instruments or props such as golf clubs or model aeroplanes.
When using living, breathing, feeling animals of any species for a sport or pursuit the owners desire to compete & win can have a very detrimental effect on the animals quality of life.

Responsible breeders will take the results, both good & bad, from health results and add them to the balancing act that has to be done when breeding for health & beauty. Ambitious breeders make their task simpler by cutting out the testing, or ignoring unwelcome results, and just concentrating on producing for beauty.

In cavaliers there are lots of breeders that do health test & they all get hurt when lumped in with uncaring breeders. Time & time again I read indignant comments that say "I do all the tests and my dog is healthy" but very few, before the PDE film was shown, were from breeders who dominate in the show ring or anyone who produces more than one or two litters a year.

If only concerned breeders would look at the wider picture, instead of taking criticism of poor dog breeding practices as if they are directed at them personally. If they refused to turn a blind eye to those who do not put the health of their dogs & the breed first, and demanded to see certificates before they use stud dogs, or before they accepted bitches for mating, what a difference that could make.

I applaud everyone that puts the health & welfare of their dogs first but my experience of working to raise awareness of SM over a number of years has shown me that a few individuals' personal efforts cannot save a breed when others refuse to accept there is a problem.
If top breeders are not going to support health testing schemes then nothing will change.

Margaret C

Ciren

8th March 2009, 04:49 PM

bang goes my feeling of hope. i wanna hug Jemima for sticking to her guns.

HollyDolly

8th March 2009, 07:27 PM

[quote=Margaret C;311918]I do understand what you are saying, I still show my Japanese Chin sometimes and thoroughly enjoy my day out, but, while trying to get breeders to realise the seriousness of SM, I was so often dismissed with " I just want to enjoy a day out with my dogs, this is my hobby" that I now take a slightly different view of a phrase that is so often trotted out as an excuse for not taking responsibility.

In reply to the above quote (sorry still cannnot get it to go in the blue box)

There might be some confusion over the post I had written, I was replying to Harleyfarley who stated that Crufts was nothing more than a freak show, and it looks like I have written that but I did not.

As far as what Margaret has written re taking a different view when someone says "I just want to enjoy my day out with my dogs" That I took my dogs health very seriously, they were all heart and eye tested and were only campaigned in perefct health but it was still my hobby. I met some wonderful people and not so wonderful, and am still in touch with those wonderful people today who I know take their dogs health very seriously.
Being perfectly honest I was a little upset at Maragret's comments as I had always considered myself a responsible person when it came to the breeding and showing of my dogs.

I think the breed's problem is that we have many a "dodgy" breeder and it take those good ones like yourself to stand up to them and the public at large to do so aswell before we can rid ourselves of the "money grabbers" that we hear so much about, I'm sure we all know who I mean without having to say, thanks to PDE.

We also need to clamp down on those breeders "that pretend" that they have the heatlh of the breed in their interests and its our job to weedle them out for the scum that they are.... as we can't rely on the KC to do diddly squat about them!

Margaret C

9th March 2009, 01:40 AM

Dear Nanette,

Please do not be upset. I was not talking about you. It is obvious to everybody that you are a responsible owner who truly loves her dogs.

I was talking about the people that make a lot of money out of breeding, but still seem to think they can excuse themselves from taking measures to protect the future of the breed ( and the health of their own dogs ) by pretending that it is just a hobby.

Margaret C

kmatt

9th March 2009, 03:34 AM

The only problem I have with the RSPCA is that the legislation that I have seen with regards to breeders takes away the ability for families to breed once maybe twice and not again. I bred dogs once when I was younger. We took every precaution and made sure about the major problems for the breed were not found in the sire or the dam, but if the RSPCA has their bill passed it would make what we did a crime. When you breed dogs you need to do it for their health and the enjoyment. Showing and whatever else should come second.

Shivers

9th March 2009, 09:35 AM

I watched PDE for the first time ever last night. It was horrible to watch, too many silly breeders with their heads in the sand while good ones are virtually ostracised for doing the right thing. Eventually some breeds will just become extinct because their health will be so poor.

It was a real eye opener and still the Crufts judges are picking unhealthy dogs as the winners.

harleyfarley

9th March 2009, 11:34 AM

I think that crufts and the kc should be disbanded, and a new authorising body set up by the vetinary association with a new guide line of breeding standards, alright some dogs that were deemed to be champions will no longer fulfill that criteria but then we are taking about the health of certain breeds of dogs, gradually as people prefer to buy puppies from breeders that have vetinary approved status the problems will become less frequent and will always be in poor bred, non caring breeders and the people that purchase a puppy from them either have pay enormous vet fees or have the dog put down - that happens anyway.

Insurance company could use the list the discount people buying puppies from an approved breeder who is listed. Either that or crufts could revise its guidelines to coincide with the vetinery association rules.

Am i just dreaming??????????? In an ideal world maybe.

sins

9th March 2009, 11:55 AM

It was a real eye opener and still the Crufts judges are picking unhealthy dogs as the winners.
I watched all the groups on crufts TV.
The judges to be fair can only judge what's put in front of them on the day and if these are the dogs who qualify for crufts then they're obliged to judge them.The breeds who came into crufts with problems with overexaggerations will exit crufts in exactly the same way.It bothered me that the Peke had to be referred to the vet but at least the steward had the authority to refer it and did so.
I watched the mastiffs closely this year(insofar as you can on a fuzzy pc screen) and the judges went for lighter, less mature dogs.The neapolitan mastiff was declared by the commentator though to be a fine specimen and not over exaggerated (as the handler held it's lips behind it's ears:confused:).
The bulldog was still a barrel of a dog but we were told that he wasn't as overexaggerated as others in the bulldog ring.
But if the commentators are correct,the judges didn't place dogs who had overexaggerated skin folds or were too heavy or looked unsound.A peke is a peke is a peke and will still have a flat face and all the problems that it brings with it.
There were some wonderful,attractive athletic dogs who surfaced to the top of their groups,even the little papillon was firing on all cylinders and deserved it's group win.The King charles gave a good account of itself and gave it's handler every reason to be proud.
I have reservations about using any one dog show as a barometer of the overall breed health, because as we dissect the aftermath of Crufts,there are vermin out there,googling what exactly a Sealyham terrier is so they can breed a few dozen in the back of their sheds to unleash on the unsuspecting public.
These vermin escape through every loophole they can find and I can see how frustrating it is for a committed health focussed breeder to be made jump through hoops while the vermin are seldom held to account.
There's no point scooping the film off the top of the barrel while a cesspit lies at the bottom.
Sins

harleyfarley

9th March 2009, 12:19 PM

Yes i can see now, thanks sins, what your saying, is if they judges avoid the extreme cases, and go for a more natural pug (if there is such a thing) but def a more healthy specimin, in time the breeds will change slightly.
But how can a judge tell if a cavalier has sm or a heart murmur. di

Brian M

9th March 2009, 12:40 PM

Hi

Sorry despite having read so much about PDE I am to much of a coward so I have still not watched the programme ,but I do believe our Cavalier experts opinion on the programme and fully support them in whatever action they think is appropriate to rid the Cavalier world of all these undesireable breeders .But I have to mention the point that the vast majority of the public are not members of educational forums like ours and would therefore be no wiser as to the attributes or otherwise of breeders unless some how we can start naming names of good and bad breeders but because of the legals involved I have no idea how this could be achieved but I hope there may be some way forward soon.
I have had contact recently from somebody that is in a senior position in the Cavalier world who I can honestly say was so helpful and informative that I now more fully understand that there are a lot of sincere and very caring people out there who are involved in breeding and showing Cavaliers and therefore the barrel of apples is not completely full of rotten ones and that they are mainly good with only a few bad ones but they often make the most noise and therefore unfortunately taint all of them.
So I would like to say a big thank you to this individual and I fully appreciate their time and trouble taken in helping educate me more in the way of The Wondeful World Of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.:)
PS I would love to name this person but because of the current climate I cannot and also have not sought their permission.

sins

9th March 2009, 12:41 PM

A judge can't tell if a cavalier has SM or MVD. If he suspects a dog is under stress for any cause(including a murmur )I assume he could do as the peke steward did and send the dog to the show vet.Unless the vet has a mobile scanner in a 40 ft truck outside there's not a lot he can do to prove or disprove SM:D
A lot of top winning cavaliers would be quite young,too young to have a murmur and too young to scan in order to even be given a grading for SM status.So any of the rules that applied to the "overexaggerated" breeds are irrelevant to the cavalier breed.
Of course an exhibitor could scan a cavalier at a younger age to get an idea of it's status but that status may change as the dog matures.
Ideally the showring is intended to assess a dog for it's suitability for breeding i.e selection of the best specimen.
With cavaliers it appears that the showring is only part of the selection process now.As some sires can sire 40+ litters and their progeny do well in the showring it is essential that a cavalier who has excelled in the showring prove his suitability for breeding by being scanned and clear and demonstrating his breeder's committment to the future health of the cavalier breed..

Karlin

9th March 2009, 01:01 PM

The only problem I have with the RSPCA is that the legislation that I have seen with regards to breeders takes away the ability for families to breed once maybe twice and not again.

But this is the point as far as I am concerned. How many families who just breed once or twice understand the massive impact their two little litters could have on generations of dogs to come? How many truly understand even the basics of genetics and recessive traits their vet won;t see? How many understand how to interpret 5 generation pedigrees and research the health issues in all the lines that feed into the sire and dam? How many will actually pay to see the *specialists* needed to diagnose some existing conditions -- and instead just think a quick vet check is enough? (it is well proven for example that vets miss HALF of all early onset heart murmurs -- which means that if people breed only having had their vet check their cavalier's heart, there's a 50/50 chance they are breeding a dog with a murmur that will pass along the tragedy and pain of early onset MVD and early, painful death to some sad dog and grieving family).

With cavaliers: how many families breeding a litter or two will xray hips, or MRI?

How many of the puppies they sell go on spay/neuter contracts that the family enforces to make sure those dogs in turn are not bred?

It is hard enough to get club breeders to do much regarding health -- most seem focused on either winning in the ring and to hell with health, or to selling puppies and to maximise profit, so health is endlessly sacrificed (thank goodness there are many who also are not this blinkered and self-serving, primarily many small breeders whose dedication I really admire as well as their bravery as many of them have had to stand up against some of the big breeders and have therefore suffered in the ring). If it weren't, we wouldn't be in a situation where half of all cavaliers have a murmur by age 5-6, a tragically young age for an an elderly dog's disease to appear. Too many members here have dogs that have died from heart failure at only 4,5,6,7... that is like 30 and 40 year old humans collapsing from congestive heart failure. It is just WRONG.

I'd like to see health frameworks guiding how dogs are bred and given all the dogs in pounds and rescue -- I feel the world can happily do without the families breeding one or two litters. There's simply too little genetic diversity now in many, perhaps most, breeds and too many genetically-linked health issues that seem to be increasing in the wake of "popular sire syndrome"... to have haphazard casual breeding going on. :(

sins

9th March 2009, 01:32 PM

Terrierman is is flying form this morning. I wondered fleetingly for just a bare hint of a moment if he'd be pleased that a terrier had taken BIS at crufts.
*Warning,do not attempt to open this link if you are eating or drinking(you will either splatter your screen or choke to death)
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

kmatt

9th March 2009, 04:28 PM

But this is the point as far as I am concerned. How many families who just breed once or twice understand the massive impact their two little litters could have on generations of dogs to come? How many truly understand even the basics of genetics and recessive traits their vet won;t see? How many understand how to interpret 5 generation pedigrees and research the health issues in all the lines that feed into the sire and dam? How many will actually pay to see the *specialists* needed to diagnose some existing conditions -- and instead just think a quick vet check is enough? (it is well proven for example that vets miss HALF of all early onset heart murmurs -- which means that if people breed only having had their vet check their cavalier's heart, there's a 50/50 chance they are breeding a dog with a murmur that will pass along the tragedy and pain of early onset MVD and early, painful death to some sad dog and grieving family).

With cavaliers: how many families breeding a litter or two will xray hips, or MRI?

How many of the puppies they sell go on spay/neuter contracts that the family enforces to make sure those dogs in turn are not bred?

It is hard enough to get club breeders to do much regarding health -- most seem focused on either winning in the ring and to hell with health, or to selling puppies and to maximise profit, so health is endlessly sacrificed (thank goodness there are many who also are not this blinkered and self-serving, primarily many small breeders whose dedication I really admire as well as their bravery as many of them have had to stand up against some of the big breeders and have therefore suffered in the ring). If it weren't, we wouldn't be in a situation where half of all cavaliers have a murmur by age 5-6, a tragically young age for an an elderly dog's disease to appear. Too many members here have dogs that have died from heart failure at only 4,5,6,7... that is like 30 and 40 year old humans collapsing from congestive heart failure. It is just WRONG.

I'd like to see health frameworks guiding how dogs are bred and given all the dogs in pounds and rescue -- I feel the world can happily do without the families breeding one or two litters. There's simply too little genetic diversity now in many, perhaps most, breeds and too many genetically-linked health issues that seem to be increasing in the wake of "popular sire syndrome"... to have haphazard casual breeding going on. :(

No i completely agree, and Cavaliers with their lack of diversity are a very special case, but when you start having breeders turn towards the conformation class and I'm just not sure what is more wrong. A person who takes every possible precaution to breed that he or she can. Insures that the bitch is taken care of and is always loved vs the breeders who put out puppies in an attempt to perfect the breed standard.

IDK maybe the breed standard needs to just be shelved and redone, but I feel like the people who breed for the standard are much more to blame because they tend to follow inline breeding practices. Isn't that the origin of the lack of genetic diversity?

Just my thoughts. Am I just totally off base?

harleyfarley

9th March 2009, 04:36 PM

i think your spot on, people who aim for a champion dog prob limit the gene pool.

Jan Bell

10th March 2009, 06:37 PM

Incidentally the winning BIB and CC CKCS male at Crufts, Lanola Santana of Maibee, was first bred at 11 months then again at 15 months (from a quick check of databases...). So much for the MVD protocol

I have no wish to upset those who are scanning their dogs and following the recommended protocols.

Trouble is, I am not sure who these people are or how many of them exist. Hearing things like the quote above doesn’t help, nor does the fact that Cavalier health feels like an underground movement to me. More dogs being scanned now apparently, but heaven forbid that anybody suggest that PDE had anything to do with this. No, everybody was doing everything exactly right, and all the fuss is down to that pesky Jemima Harrison and friends exaggerating. Ranks closed completely, no room for movement.

I have stopped reading lots of boards as I now realise there is no point. Six months ago I was new to this and did actually believe that most Cavalier show breeders were on the side of the angels, despite my own not very good experience when I was searching for a puppy two years ago. I was happy with the breeder who I got Rufus from: true, SM wasn’t mentioned, but then nobody mentioned SM at all so I can let that go. But she was prepared to discuss MVD at length with me, and I felt that in the event of a problem I could go back to her for advice.

It now amuses me to realise that the people who are most adamant about the bias of anybody posting on this board are the ones who make the most biased assumptions themselves. At least I can laugh about this now, which is better

Still, I am an optimist, so I hope that things are changing, even if it is sometimes hard to see how. And at the very least, I know a hell of a lot more than I did six months ago, which means I am less likely to miss signs of distress in my own Cavaliers.:)

diddy

10th March 2009, 09:26 PM

[quote=Jan Bell;312188]

I have stopped reading lots of boards as I now realise there is no point.

It now amuses me to realise that the people who are most adamant about the bias of anybody posting on this board are the ones who make the most biased assumptions themselves. At least I can laugh about this now

diddy

10th March 2009, 09:29 PM

I meant to add I feel the same way exactly. (next time will try to remember to engage brain before replying):o:o

harleyfarley

10th March 2009, 09:31 PM

jan an diddy i think your both right, whatever you say and whatever you do people will just take the wrong way or argue, whats the point. :confused: